Search for: "CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, Section (C)"
Results 801 - 820
of 2,156
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 May 2017, 10:13 am
(Matt Rourke/Associated Press) So a federal district court held yesterday in Cohen v. [read post]
18 May 2017, 11:40 am
Magedson; there are others] The court concludes that this subsection does not limit Section 230(c)(1) immunity in civil actions based on criminal statutes but rather extends only to criminal prosecutions. [read post]
3 May 2017, 10:47 am
Since Justice Fischer was on the appellate panel in this case, he has recused himself, and Judge Thomas Wright of the Eleventh District Court of Appeals will be sitting in his stead. [read post]
3 May 2017, 4:50 am
United States, No. 15–9260.[2] The Court held that Section 924(c) does not prevent a sentencing court from considering a mandatory minimum imposed under that provision when calculating an appropriate sentence for the predicate offense. [read post]
14 Apr 2017, 10:29 am
District Court for the Northern District of California. [read post]
11 Apr 2017, 7:08 pm
This is different from the previous section. [read post]
9 Apr 2017, 7:34 pm
District Court Judge rejected an appeal of a conviction on the basis of a violation of ss. 2(a) and 15(1) of the Charter, I do not accept the appellant’s argument that section 365(a) of the Criminal Code is a breach of section 15 the Charter. [read post]
7 Apr 2017, 3:46 pm
This post examines a recent decision from the Court of Appeals of Ohio – Ninth District: State v. [read post]
4 Apr 2017, 11:50 am
” Continuing in this vein, the court added that no specific language in Section 924(c) “restricts the authority conferred on sentencing courts. [read post]
31 Mar 2017, 7:27 am
This post examines a recent decision from the Court of Appeal – First District, California: In re Carlos H., 2017 WL 695953 (2017). [read post]
30 Mar 2017, 10:49 pm
See C-CAT. [read post]
29 Mar 2017, 12:02 pm
” The court held that the plain language of subsection (c)(1) goes beyond just broadcast television and radio because it includes “related uses” as well. [read post]
29 Mar 2017, 11:54 am
Code § 875(c), which criminalized the transmission of any threat to kidnap or injure another, the Supreme Court held that the speaker must know that his communication contains a threat. [read post]
28 Mar 2017, 4:32 pm
In a lengthy and interesting March 25, 2017 opinion (here), Southern District of New York Judge John Koeltl largely denied the dismissal motion. [read post]
22 Mar 2017, 6:30 am
The Court wrote that the objective of the Clause is “protecting only legislative activities,” and that “[c]laims under the Clause going beyond what is needed to protect legislative independence are to be closely scrutinized. [read post]
20 Mar 2017, 2:00 am
On Thursday 23 March, the Supreme Court will hear the appeal of SM (Algeria) v Entry Clearance Officer UK Visa Section. [read post]
16 Mar 2017, 10:16 am
Rule 4(e) provides that service of an individual may be made by: (1) following state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located or where service is made; or (2) doing any of the following: (A) delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the individual personally; (B) leaving a copy of each at the individual’s dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable… [read post]
15 Mar 2017, 8:44 am
The Supreme Court has explained mail fraud this way in Pereira v. [read post]
13 Mar 2017, 7:58 am
”) Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 10 (“No person shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself. [read post]
10 Mar 2017, 12:55 pm
This case is important for state courts to take notice of as every state and the District of Columbia have some version of the no-impeachment rule. [read post]
